Introduction
I go to present one example of multimedia lerning of chemistry ( Kozma & Russel, 2006). I critically review this reseach of multimedia in chemistry and give some improvements to the program. The reason why I do so is that this program don´t declare me to be the best way of learning chemistry. I will show that some theories are supporting my improvements. On the other hand there is need for more research in this area of multimedia learning of chemistry.
An Example of Learning Environment of Chemistry
SMV:Chem (Synchronized Multiple Representation in Chemistry) and 4M:Chem (MultiMedia and Mental Models in Chemistry) illustrates the application of cognitive theory. SMV:Chem is a multimedia chemical software program which shows experiments using molecularscale animations, graphs, molecular models and equation. This program were designed for use in the clasroom during lecture and by students ouside the classroom as part of homework exercises. In this case the theme was LeChatelier`s principle and the effect of a change in temperature on the equilibrium. Students used a worksheet to guide their interactions with the software. One group used the animation window, another group used the video, a third group used the graph window anh a fourth group used all thee window. Each group had an audio narration customized to visual features in that presentations.
Results
The students who used animatios understood better the dynamic nature of gas-phase equiliprium and students who used graphs did better items related to matter. Multimedia seemed to be effective for lower secondary, upper secondary, and college chemistry students. This research not able to give state for which students it is best ti used animation, pictures or models. Nor how these various media can be used together and when it is best to do so.
How We Can Improve the Learning Environment of Chemistry
According to Arjava and Mäkitalo-Siegl (2006) curret worklife requires more ability to work with groups. Community oriented working an suppor students construction of knowledge in stead of students working alone with problems or receptioning knowledge from teachers.A good learning environment includes propability to discuss with other people. This is one of the learning evinronments of chemistry, but the question is: how we can improve that ? The best way for children to learn is a environment that builds on their existing knowledge (Sawyer, 2006). SMV:Chem hasn`t take account that. In good program students can´t proceed before they will pass the base level of the program. And everytime when they go into the program, they will answer some questions, which contents are previous knowledge. In that way students don´t forget their previous facts. The other challenge is how students can collect their pieces of facts and construct of them entity? I don`t agree that completed screen is the best way to learn chemistry. The learning environment, which conduct the students to combine video, animatio, graphic and chemical equation, is better. It requires hard work, but when they are working themselves, they will learn. The good program of chemsitry offers the environment in which peple can exchange their knowledge on real time and this knowledge is accessible for all members.
The Improvements Based on the Learning Theories
The character of the learning can improve if we take account three principles: 1) datacentric, which direct attention to the main contents - what are teching and why. 2) evaluationcentric, which make use of feedback and learn about mistakes. 3) communitycentric, which make contacts to the community and specialistculture. The positive results of community-oriented interaction show that interaction between other people stimulate the elaboration of the individuals knowledge (Arjava & Mäkitalo-Stiegl, 2006). When students share their knowledge, they will become aware of divergent pictures and their limitations. When they give and take explanations and answers, they will change their understanding. As we see cognitive conversations have a connection with learning . With tecnology it si possible to take into consideration individual needs of the students. The support, assignments and materials could vary as far as their existing knowledge. My improvements to this chemical program are based on strategygroups of Weinstein and Mayer (1986) : training-, elaboration-, organization-, metacognitive and affective strategies (Salovaara, 2006). The training strategy attached to repeat informations. Elaboration strategy includes processes which help students to cultive the information to understanding form. Organization strategy includes analyze a information for example making the conceptmaps. Metacognitive starategy follows the learning of students own. And affective strategy help to progress of learning to exclude the irrelevant matters.
Conclusions
In report by Kozma and Russel (2006) present compelling research in support of the finding results in deeper learning. According to that learning from words and pictures result in deeper learning than lerning from word alone and people learn more deeply from animation and narration rather than animation and on-screen text. According to article of Salovaara (2006) a variety of knowledge representations, textual and visual, enhance learning because it leads learners to take decisions, which construct their understanding based on different informations. This example of multimedia learning of chemistry ilustrate the contrasting and complementary nature of the cognitive and situative perspective.
References
Arjava, M., & Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2006). Järvelä, S. Häkkinen, P. & Lehtinen, E.(2006). Oppimisen teoria ja teknologian opetuskäyttö. (pp. 125—146). Helsinki: WSOY Oppimateriaalit Oy.
Bransford, J. D. (Ed.). (2004). Miten opimme: Aivot, mieli, kokemus ja koulu. Juva: WS Bookwell Oy.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79—96).
Kozma, R., & Russel, J. (2005). Multimedia learning of chemistry. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.409—428). New York: Cambridge Univercity Press.
Salovaara, H. (2006) Oppimisen strategiat ja teknologiaperustaiset oppimisympäristöt. In C. Järvelä, S. Häkkinen, P. & Lehtinen, E.(2006). Oppimisen teoria ja teknologian opetuskäyttö. (pp.103—120). Helsinki: WSOY Oppimateriaalit Oy.
Sawyer, J. G. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.),The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.1-16). New York: Cambridge Univercity Press.
Introduction
I go to present one example of multimedia lerning of chemistry ( Kozma & Russel, 2006). I critically review this reseach of multimedia in chemistry and give some improvements to the program. The reason why I do so is that this program don´t declare me to be the best way of learning chemistry. I will show that some theories are supporting my improvements. On the other hand there is need for more research in this area of multimedia learning of chemistry.
An Example of Learning Environment of Chemistry
SMV:Chem (Synchronized Multiple Representation in Chemistry) and 4M:Chem (MultiMedia and Mental Models in Chemistry) illustrates the application of cognitive theory. SMV:Chem is a multimedia chemical software program which shows experiments using molecularscale animations, graphs, molecular models and equation. This program were designed for use in the clasroom during lecture and by students ouside the classroom as part of homework exercises. In this case the theme was LeChatelier`s principle and the effect of a change in temperature on the equilibrium. Students used a worksheet to guide their interactions with the software. One group used the animation window, another group used the video, a third group used the graph window anh a fourth group used all thee window. Each group had an audio narration customized to visual features in that presentations.
Results
The students who used animatios understood better the dynamic nature of gas-phase equiliprium and students who used graphs did better items related to matter. Multimedia seemed to be effective for lower secondary, upper secondary, and college chemistry students. This research not able to give state for which students it is best ti used animation, pictures or models. Nor how these various media can be used together and when it is best to do so.
How We Can Improve the Learning Environment of Chemistry
According to Arjava and Mäkitalo-Siegl (2006) curret worklife requires more ability to work with groups. Community oriented working an suppor students construction of knowledge in stead of students working alone with problems or receptioning knowledge from teachers.A good learning environment includes propability to discuss with other people. This is one of the learning evinronments of chemistry, but the question is: how we can improve that ? The best way for children to learn is a environment that builds on their existing knowledge (Sawyer, 2006). SMV:Chem hasn`t take account that. In good program students can´t proceed before they will pass the base level of the program. And everytime when they go into the program, they will answer some questions, which contents are previous knowledge. In that way students don´t forget their previous facts. The other challenge is how students can collect their pieces of facts and construct of them entity? I don`t agree that completed screen is the best way to learn chemistry. The learning environment, which conduct the students to combine video, animatio, graphic and chemical equation, is better. It requires hard work, but when they are working themselves, they will learn. The good program of chemsitry offers the environment in which peple can exchange their knowledge on real time and this knowledge is accessible for all members.
The Improvements Based on the Learning Theories
The character of the learning can improve if we take account three principles: 1) datacentric, which direct attention to the main contents - what are teching and why. 2) evaluationcentric, which make use of feedback and learn about mistakes. 3) communitycentric, which make contacts to the community and specialistculture. The positive results of community-oriented interaction show that interaction between other people stimulate the elaboration of the individuals knowledge (Arjava & Mäkitalo-Stiegl, 2006). When students share their knowledge, they will become aware of divergent pictures and their limitations. When they give and take explanations and answers, they will change their understanding. As we see cognitive conversations have a connection with learning . With tecnology it si possible to take into consideration individual needs of the students. The support, assignments and materials could vary as far as their existing knowledge. My improvements to this chemical program are based on strategygroups of Weinstein and Mayer (1986) : training-, elaboration-, organization-, metacognitive and affective strategies (Salovaara, 2006). The training strategy attached to repeat informations. Elaboration strategy includes processes which help students to cultive the information to understanding form. Organization strategy includes analyze a information for example making the conceptmaps. Metacognitive starategy follows the learning of students own. And affective strategy help to progress of learning to exclude the irrelevant matters.
Conclusions
In report by Kozma and Russel (2006) present compelling research in support of the finding results in deeper learning. According to that learning from words and pictures result in deeper learning than lerning from word alone and people learn more deeply from animation and narration rather than animation and on-screen text. According to article of Salovaara (2006) a variety of knowledge representations, textual and visual, enhance learning because it leads learners to take decisions, which construct their understanding based on different informations. This example of multimedia learning of chemistry ilustrate the contrasting and complementary nature of the cognitive and situative perspective.
Keywords: Chemistry, Program, Learning environment, improvement
References
Arjava, M., & Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2006). Järvelä, S. Häkkinen, P. & Lehtinen, E.(2006). Oppimisen teoria ja teknologian opetuskäyttö. (pp. 125—146). Helsinki: WSOY Oppimateriaalit Oy.
Bransford, J. D. (Ed.). (2004). Miten opimme: Aivot, mieli, kokemus ja koulu. Juva: WS Bookwell Oy.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79—96).
Kozma, R., & Russel, J. (2005). Multimedia learning of chemistry. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.409—428). New York: Cambridge Univercity Press.
Salovaara, H. (2006) Oppimisen strategiat ja teknologiaperustaiset oppimisympäristöt. In C. Järvelä, S. Häkkinen, P. & Lehtinen, E.(2006). Oppimisen teoria ja teknologian opetuskäyttö. (pp.103—120). Helsinki: WSOY Oppimateriaalit Oy.
Sawyer, J. G. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.),The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.1-16). New York: Cambridge Univercity Press.